[2026:RJ-JP:5663] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 77/2026 1. Janki Bai, Aged About 45 Years, W/o Late Kailashchand @ Kailash. 2. Chandra Prakash, Aged About 24 Years, S/o Late Kailashchand @ Kailash, 3. Lokesh, Aged About 22 Years, S/o Late Kailashchand @ Kailash, 4. Rampratap S/o Bapulal, Aged About 72 Years, 5. Lila Bai W/o Rampratap, Aged About 67 Years, Residents Of Barai, Tehsil Susner, District Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh. Currently Resding At Shri Lal Dangi Adhyapak Ka Makan, Kali Talai, Tehsil Pidawa, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan. ----Appellants/Claimants Versus 1. Ajay Patil S/o Pandit Patil, R/o 22, Mangal Nagar, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Currently Residing At Village Doiphodiya, Tehsil Khaknar, District Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh, (Owner Truck No. Mp09Hf0756). 2. National Insurance Company Limited, Indore, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shavant Vijay, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 06/02/2026 vihykFkhZx.k@nkosnkjku dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr] deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e&1923] >kykokM] eq[;ky;] dksVk }kjk izdj.k la[;k bZlhlh (>kykokM+)-32/2015 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 25-08-2025 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh] ftlds ek/;e ls [2026:RJ-JP:5663] (2 of 3) [CMA-77/2026] vihykFkhZx.k@nkosnkjku dk Dyse Lohdkj dj izfrdj izR;FkhZ Øe&1 ls fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA izR;FkhZ i{k dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s fcuk blh izØe ij vihy dks lquk] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k dk fuosnu gS fd e`rd dSyk'kpan izR;FkhZ Øe&1 ds okgu ij pkyd gksdj mlds fu;kstu esa Fkk rFkk okgu izR;FkhZ Øe&2 chek daiuh ds ;gka chfer Fkk ysfdu oS/k vuqKk i= e`rd ds ikl ugha gksus ds vk/kkj ij chek daiuh dks nkf;Ro ls mUeksfpr fd;k x;k gS] bl lhek rd vihyk/khu fu.kZ; mikarfjr dj izR;FkhZ Øe&2 chek daiuh ls izfrdj jkf'k fnyk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ij fopkj djus ds mijkar U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha (2019) SCC 514 esa iSjk la[;k&9] 10] 11 o 12 ds ek/;e ls fuEu O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh gS%& "9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act. 10. The afore-mentioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are [2026:RJ-JP:5663] (3 of 3) [CMA-77/2026] proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact. 11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lie only against the specific orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question of law. 12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a Regular First Appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case." mijksDr fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj fdl foi{kh dk izfrdj jkf'k ds laca/k esa nkf;Ro gS] ;g rF; dk iz'u gS] ftls nksuksa i{kksa ds }kjk lk{; izLrqr dj izekf.kr fd;k gS vkSj mlds vk/kkj ij lE;d :i ls fopkj dj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk vihyk/khu vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gSA bl izdkj Li"V gS fd tks vkifRr@vk{ksi vihykFkhZx.k }kjk fy;k x;k gS] og rF;ksa ds laca/k esa gS] bl ekeys esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u varoZfyr ugha gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ^^vf/kfu;e&1923** dh /kkjk 30 rFkk fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha ¼iwoksZDr½ esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA ifj.kker% vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 25-08-2025 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J DINESH KUMAWAT /43